NATIONAL GUARD FINALE?....I haven't had any National Guard
posts for a few days, but that's mainly because there hasn't been any
fresh news to report. The "full release" of documents last Friday seems to have shut everyone up.

(But admit it: it's kind of nice that the wingnut commenter
population around here has dropped off, isn't it? It's the Guard stuff
that brings them around, you know.)
At any rate, this is probably a good time to summarize what we know. The following is relatively non-controversial:

George Bush joined the Guard in 1968 for a six-year term. It's not clear if he actually needed much
help getting into a fighter unit (which required a much greater time
commitment than most Guard postings), but there's no question that he
did, in fact, benefit from some high-level string pulling. Texas über-politico Ben Barnes admitted as much under oath in 1999.

For four years he served faithfully and compiled a good record.

In 1971-72 he apparently started losing interest in
the Guard. He attended drills much less often than before and flew for
the last time on April 16, 1972.

During Bush's final two years he performed the
minimal duties needed to fulfill his commitment. He was transferred to
the Reserves six months before his commitment was up and discharged from
the Reserves a year after that.

So far, all this shows is that Bush cut a few corners
and was less than zealous about finishing his 6-year commitment. Given
Bush's age, the tenor of the times, and the winding down of the Vietnam
War, this is hardly noteworthy.

What is noteworthy, however, is the suspicion that there's
more to the story. My email inbox is full to bursting with queries
about whether I've heard of some theory or another to explain Bush's
six-month absence in 1972 (answer: yes), and if these theories were
confined to the tinfoil hat crowd we could just move on. But they
aren't, and there are some pretty good reasons for that:

Bush refused to release his full military records in
1994, 1998, 2000, and again for several weeks in 2004 even under intense
pressure. Why act guilty if you have nothing to hide?

His records change abruptly during that six month
period in 1972 when he was absent from drills. Before then, the drill
records are all from the Texas Air National Guard and are relatively
complete. After that they are all national level records and are mere
summaries. Why? What happened?

Bush returned to Houston in November 1972, but
apparently went back to Alabama afterwards and got a dental checkup on
January 6, 1973, even though his transfer to Alabama was only for September-November anyway. Why? He says he went back to "finish up his commitment," but that doesn't make any sense. There was no commitment. Why not simply report back to his home unit at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston? Was he avoiding something?

In other words, there are a lot of unanswered questions
that make it perfectly reasonable to suspect that there's more to this
story than meets the eye. Unfortunately, questions are all they are.

So what's next? At the moment, nothing, unless someone digs up some
new evidence. It's possible that the Bushies aren't really releasing
his entire file, but someone would need to come up with evidence for
that. It's possible that documents were purged from his file, but we
would need further evidence beyond Burkett's word to keep that story
alive. It's possible that something happened in mid-1972 to explain the
odd discrepancies in the documents, but there's no hard evidence of
that either.

So the story is stuck in an endless speculation loop unless some
enterprising reporter comes up with actual new evidence. Until then, we
wait. And if no new evidence appears, the story dies.

"all this shows is that Bush cut a few corners and was less than zealous about finishing his 6-year commitment"

Which is where it was in 2000.
All this AWOL business has amounted to a few vague suspicions by Bush's
partisan foes. Again, where we were at the end of 2000, only now
everybody knows the AWOL charge is baseless.

Yes, it's shameless blogwhoring, but I think I've got a few questions that need answering.

* Why was Bush's HD from the TANG redacted in 2000?
* Why is James Bath's name redacted in 2000, but revealed in 2004,
listed just under Bush's suspension from flying order for the exact same
reason? Why did they not take their physicals? Has anyone asked Mr.
Bath?
* What does (PTI 961) mean?
* What is the ANGR 36-05 regulation Bush is discharged under?
* Why does Bush not have a SPN code on his DD-214? Is the version they
revealed the DELETED version, or the UNDELETED version? You have to ask
for the UNDELETED version if you want all the comments your CO made on
your discharge, your SPN code, etc. We don't see that, and it would be
Copy #4 if this was requested via normal channels.

Also Bush pretty clearly disobeyed a direct order to take a flight
physical signed by the head of the national guard. I think the
speculation over what might be in the files raised the scandal bar
impossibly high.

Monkey-you should throw in the compliance required in the "para 2-10
AFM 35-13" reference on the suspension from flying. No one has yet been
able to clarify exactly what that is. It's been suggested that this may
have been a request that needed to be filed in order to restore to
flight status. However this has not been confirmed.

Other obvious points:
- W left the TANG and went to Alabama even though his tranfer had been denied
- His comments in his 2000 bio that he continued flying for years afterwards were an outright lie
- He still hasn't explained not only why he failed to take the required
physical, but also failed to make it up despite the severity of the
issue
- His comments about why he didn't take the physical (no qualifed physicians) is an outright lie
- How he "completed" his service is still unexplained since the TANG
says he had not been seen there but he has shown no evidence of
completing his duty in Alabama

Note that in today's press briefing, Helen Thomas (may God bless her) brought up the community service issue again:

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll come to you in a minute.

Go ahead, Helen.

Q I want to revisit a question I asked you last week and you didn't
have the answer -- you may have it now. Did the President ever do
community service while he was in the National Guard?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, you had said that this was relating to a rumor
that you heard, and I think there's a difference between rumor-mongering
and journalism. And so I'm just not going to dignify those kind of
rumors from this podium. I think the records have been released and you
have -- all the information is available to you publicly.

Q So you don't really know?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said this was relating to some trashy rumors
that are circulating out there, and I'm just not going to dignify them
from this podium.

Observe how quickly Bush defenders declare that the AWOL charge is
"baseless." No, it's merely unproved and, at least for the time being,
unprovable. If Bush had been able to show that he actually did something
during his "lost months" (which his partial document dump did not
do), then the charge would actually be refuted. Instead we have
stalemate. Perhaps this is good enough for the Bush partisans to declare
victory and hope nothing worse bubbles up to the surface. Even so, it
was instructive to see how clumsily the issue was handled by the mass
media and the questions raised about Bush's ability to tell the truth
(or even a consistent story) will stay with us.

Nice summing up. Altho I'd disagree that his NG attendence, and the
lack thereof, isn't "noteworthy". I think it becomes extremely
noteworthy every time Pres. Bush dons military garb. When the guy
wrapping himself in the mantle of a military man is a guy who, for
whatever reason, simply blew off his military commitment, that's
noteworthy.

Thanks Kevin for the full summary. Personally, I think it's kinda
funny that the wingnuts are eager to see this whole AWOL issue closed,
given their insistence (partly justified, I should add) that the public
at large doesn't really care about it. I mean, do the wingers really
want more attention paid to the truly serious problems with this
administration, like the jobless recovery, the Plame outing, humongous
deficits, the terrible post-Iraq war planning, etc.? It seems to me
they'd be happier if everyone here focused on this supposedly trivial
dead-end issue of Bush's service, or lack thereof.

Maybe it's the cognitive dissonance of having to rely on arguments of
moral relativism ("everyone else was doing it") to explain away the
irrelevance of the evidence that makes it such an issue for them. In any
case, the whole exercise has been worth it, even if nothing more comes
of this episode evidence-wise than what we've seen. The seeds of doubt
are now planted in the public's mind about W's honesty and competence -
also, the WH press corps has finally woken from its 3-year slumber (it's
still drowsy, but at least it's out of bed), and polls abound showing
the Democratic nominee not only being competitive in November but
winning.

Newsweek got an interesting quote I hadn't seen before. "Pressed
by his anxious staff, Bush himself couldn't recall much about his duty
in Alabama. 'He remembers shooting the breeze,' said communications director Dan Bartlett."

In other words, he doesn't remember shit, which is sort of odd, don't you think?

I mean, if I were to be pressed to describe a job I had as an adult, I
would be able to recall at LEAST some stuff, like the building, the
gate I entered, the car I drove, etc.

Something tells me that future historians of the Bush Administration
(who I hope will begin their work starting next January) will run into
the same issues--redacted files, incomplete documentation, hints of
impropiety but no smoking gun.

Kevin attempts to sum up the evidence. Alas, his Bush-Hatred gets
the better of him, and he ends up cherry-picking the evidence, and even
outright lying. Let's just break down ONE of his statements:

A large number of witnesses say they can't remember ever seeing
him at Dannelly Air Base in Montgomery, including some who were on the
lookout for him, and the only witness with a clear memory of seeing Bush
has turned out to be non-credible.

A "large number"? Out of EIGHT HUNDRED in the Unit, we have about a
dozen. Not a "large number" in any event, and CERTAINLY NOT a large
number given the size of the Unit. So it is HARDLY LIKELY that a few
out of 800 people in the Unit would remember him. Backing me up, the AP
states: "Retired Maj. Norman Rahn, 74, who was with the 187th Tactical
Reconnaissance Group in 1972-73, said he doubts anyone would remember an
out-of-state pilot who spent a total of six to 10 days on base in a
three-month period 32 years ago." Moreover, even Turnipseed has said
that there's no reason he would remember Bush.

And then we have "some" people were looking for him. Uh, make that ONE person - Mintz - not "some" people.

And there was "only witness with a clear memory" turns out to be TWO witnesses - Calhoun AND LeFevers. So there's ANOTHER lie.

"turns out to be non-credible". Except that his statement is backed
up by his ex-wife. And, moreover, if we are going to get into the
credibility of the witnesses, we should note that lack of credibility
among disgruntled witnesses like Mintz and his friend, who themselves
turn out to be non-credible.

So, in the end, it turns out the KEVIN is the one who seems to be hiding the evidence here, not Bush.

Do you want everyone to know that you still believe people have the power to participate in their government?

Do you want everyone to know that you're going to continue to fight the good fight for average Americans?

Then come out on Saturday afternoon and show the world.

NATIONWIDE DEAN VISIBILITY EVENT:

Gather in a busy spot in your cities and towns to thank Howard Dean
and show America that you still believe in the power of American
citizens to shape their government. Bring your "Thank you Howard Dean"
signs.

2:00 pm Eastern
1:00 pm Central
12:00 pm Mountain
11:00 am Pacific

Saturday, February 21

I will be in Chicago at Daley Plaza (where the Picasso sculpture is). Chicago area Dean supporters, please join me.

Dean folks from other areas, please consider doing this. Send the
word out through your networks. Choose a likely location for gathering
and get the word out. This could be an opportunity to show people that
we're still out here and still determined to stay in the fight together,
and still ABLE to mobilize quickly.

The President chuckled. "Well, you got a pretty face," he told the surprised Mr. Reid. He wasn't done. "You got a pretty face," he said again. "You're a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott anyway."

This is true. His Scott has a receding hairline and is on the chubby
side, while Mr. Martin's Scott has a full head of hair and is quite fit.

For the first time in his life, Mr. Reid had no reply. "I didn't know
what to say," said Mr. Reid, noting later that he wished that Mr. Bush
had referred to him as a "rugged-looking young man or something.

"But I'll take what I can, I guess," he joked. "When a Texas Republican says you've got a pretty face, then I guess there is just no way around it."

fer f's sake Al, you're identifiable from your first sentence! i
start reading, you hit all your buzzwords, and i say "this must be Al". i
scroll to the bottom of the post and, sure enough, it's you! and of
course, as always, you end your rant with an attack on on esteemed host.
predictable, zzzz.

what a masochist you must be, to continually subject yourself to a place that you obviously hate so much.

Excellent summary of the Guard situation.
Maybe now the emphasis should be to note how non-credible George Bush
is, how his whole persona as a straight shooter who takes responsibility
and can be trusted to make all those "tough decisions" is total bull.
The whole administration just refuses to deal with REALITY, preferring
instead to insist on some alternate reality that fits perfectly with
whatever they say.

It really is like the emperor's new clothes, and it really is an
impending fascism, that is an antidemocratic political system ruled by a
relatively small economic elite using bogus patriotism and shiny,
preferably nipple-pierced scandals and titilations to distract the media
and much of the population from the evil being perpetrated.

I just want to know why he didn't take his physical?.. and,
afterwards, I just want an answer to every other question that Kevin
(et.al.) has raised.

Was he ever busted for cocaine? Was he ordered by the courts to
perform community service while a member of the Guard, and did that
impact his ability to serve as a pilot? And did he pop for an woman's
(girl's?) abortion in pre-Roe vs Wade America?

I heard the reporter from the WaPo on Fresh Air today. About this issue he said, "And we'll probably never know."
Why? This sounds like a job for:
"Special Prosecutor Man!"

If we could unleash a special prosecutor on Bush, with the ability to
open files and subpoena witnesses, which area should he go after?
Plame? This? Other?
Don't we get 70 million to play with? (Just to be fair).

Who do we need to come forward? Why would they WANT to? What's in it
for them unless they are compelled? If we don't have that compelling
reason you will only get people who have axes to grind (impacting their
credibility) or people who want to are willing to lie to support the
president.

Kevin, I know a lot of people now want to put the Bush TANG
controversy aside and move on but I'm not willing to do that. It's very
personal for me because I served in the USAF at about the same time as
Bush was in the TANG. I didn't get the breaks he did and it still
pisses me off that he acts like such a hero. I had to compete to get
into OTS and had to successfully complete it to get my commission - it
was not handed to me. I did not get into flight school although I had a
higher score than Bush on the pilot portion of the AFOQT. I served on
active duty, which Bush avoided because he was in the TANG. I completed
service to my country, all the way to the last day of my commitment -
which Bush did not. I think I'm more of a patriot than Bush is because I
didn't take the easy way out as he did. As a national leader, the man
disgusts me.

Thank you Sovereign Eye for posting my thoughts. So many questions,
so few answers. Just like a former drug user can spot another, Bush's
bullshit can be spotted a mile away. The man is a mile wide and an inch
deep. Keep scratching the surface and let his many faults surface.

In other words, he doesn't remember shit, which is sort of odd, don't you think?

Ha! Shows how much you know. "Shooting the breeze" is an airforce
term for flying a jet after the fuel has all been burned up. At which
point, you have to use it as a glider to get back to base. A very
difficult task in a modern fighter jet, and one which only the Bravest
and Most Skilled pilots would attempt.

Lt. Bush shot the breeze after hazardous missions to Cuba, where he
would land his fighter and pick up hordes of poor Cuban children,
longing to travel to Freedom in America, and bring them back to Alabama,
stopping briefly in Pamama City, FL to "score a little poon-tang."

He would then "shoot the breeze" back to the base, where he would
land safely and hand the children over to his friend Dr. Frist who
promised to take good care of them.

One other point on Kevin's post. Post-Kerry/Polier, it's very
helpful for Kevin to point out that there STILL ISN'T A SHRED OF
EVIDENCE that Bush was AWOL. There is exactly the same amount of
evidence to show Bush was AWOL as there is to show that Kerry had an
affair with Polier.

So it's helpful to keep in mind the parallels between the two "scandals".

The story won't die, Mr. Drum. It will live on in tens of millions
of minds who truly were not aware of this rich little snot's lark in the
guard.

It never occurred to me it would bloom at all anyway. The press
freaked it up again and usually won't correct a mistake. It should have
been a small-to-medium story of 2000. Bush asked for it with that
incredible carrier stunt.

No, it will live on. Nice surprise bonus to the start of the campaign.

Its funny how all the Bush-haters weighing in on the AWOL topic have
absolutely NO MILITARY experience whatsoever, and no friends who can
help them sort it out. The fact is, only the military can judge whether
someone was AWOL or a deserter. And judging from what the military
blogs are saying (I would think they have a lot more experience in the
matter than the anti-military-types I see here) I am one to put more
credibility with the military people. All these conspiracy theories
about missing months in AL and "purged records" are ridiculous
speculation because none of you know anything about military process or
record keeping. If any of you had a question about the ramifications of
Microsoft's source code being released on the internet, you'd go to
someone in the computer technolgy industry for an explanation. I just
don't understand why you wouldn't check with military people about the
military process to clear up how to interpret Bush's guard records. The
only conclusion I can come to is that the Bush-haters don't want to
know the truth. Its just more fodder to fuel their Bush hatred. Let it
go already. The military decided in Bush's favor on this matter
looooooong ago.

There have been over 200 new stories about Bush's National Guard
record cataloged on Google News for the last three days, which is much
less than at the recent peak of the coverage (1254 added stories on
2/10) but is still significantly more than any day prior to the 8th
except the 3rd.

Interest in this story is still high, and I think we do ourselves and
the public a disservice by assuming it has blown over, when all it
needs is some goosing from the Democrats.

Give it a rest or forget it. We're looking like the same jerks that
found Kerry an intern mistress. It's bad enough that Governor Dean
retired from the race yesterday. What's this supposed to do? Bind us
together or make us look like fools?

Deaniac for Edwards! (They've even set up a "welcome" blog at
Edwards' site. It's pretty hokey but maybe we can teach them a few
things. ;)

And BTW I spent 365 full days in Nam. It's a little hard to easily
forget that era. You're bitchin' about a paper trail that probably
doesn't exist for many. I got stranded in San Diego for two months when
I got back, for example, over the small matter that they'd lost ALL MY
RECORDS! The fools did find some of them but even with my citations in
hand for awards for service in Nam they never found the "real records"
so I never really received them. I vaguely recall that my personal
computer wasn't that great in 1969 either so record keeping was a bit
different than in this wondrous modern era.

Deaniac for Edwards!

Oops I already said that. Why don't you sell your story to the National Enquirer and move on?

(I'm from the Midwest and we're typically not overly fond of
Californians. Now I remember one of the reasons why. I trust this post
has no statistical effect on your most recent IQ test.)

Thanks for the summary of this important issue. I understand how
frustrating it is to have no fresh leads but it seems your questions
still have legs. I think the physical is secondary to the cleansing
accusation. Of course W's sexual problem of premature evacuation of 8
months seems quite serious,even with the zietgeist of the early 70s

When Bush was in Alabama in June-September 1972, he was ABSENT from
his Texas unit (this was before he was granted permission to transfer to
Alabama). Apparently he did not have permission, that is LEAVE, to blow
off his TANG committment over those months. In other words, he was
ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE during those months. Now, apparently that was not a
huge deal back then, as the WaPo columnist Richard Cohen noted
regarding himself. But he was AWOL and NOW he wont take responsibility
for it. But he wants us to believe he's some warrior hero, that he's a
"war president" who deserves a place on Mount Rushmore, that God wants
him to be President!!

People who go AWOL should not be on Mt. Rushmore.
People who cover up and lie about their past should not be trusted to be moral leaders.
People who think God wants them to be Presdient should not be President.

Valerie comments without having read the posts:
"Its funny how all the Bush-haters weighing in on the AWOL topic have
absolutely NO MILITARY experience whatsoever, and no friends who can
help them sort it out...."

Dear Valerie, in the time it took you to write a long post (which I
didn't have the patience to finish reading), Michael already proved you
wrong.
So next time remember: brevity is the soul of wit. You let your Bush-Idolatry blind you.

" I just don't understand why you wouldn't check with military people
about the military process to clear up how to interpret Bush's guard
records."

Don't be ridiculous. If you've been following any of this on this
site, you'd know that Kevin has been very careful to ask EXPLICITLY for
answers from military people when he has been unsure how to interpret
the data. Look through the archives and you'll see.

How old are you, Kevin? I followed the Watergate break-in for over
two years before Nixon finally quit. That was very frustrating for me. I
hated Nixon. Now we have a plethora of bloggers to accelerate the news
cycle. Paul Sperry at WND has a very good article today. I point this
WND source out for two reasons: it is usually soooooo pro-bush and also,
Sperry points to the James Bath connection. I will admit that Nixon did
win that election in '72 but now we have the power of you! The power of
internet to get these facts out early and often.

here's the connection to the WND article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37162

"Newsweek got an interesting quote I hadn't seen before. "Pressed by his
anxious staff, Bush himself couldn't recall much about his duty in
Alabama. 'He remembers shooting the breeze,' said communications
director Dan Bartlett."

In contrast with:

"The author recounts Bush's steel-trap memory: He could remember all
of Willie Mays's batting averages, and in 1988, he memorized the names
and faces of 100 key Washington political reporters in preparation for
his father's Presidential campaign."

Its funny how all the Bush-haters weighing in on the AWOL topic
have absolutely NO MILITARY experience whatsoever, and no friends who
can help them sort it out.

Sorry Valerie, not only did Michael prove you wrong, but several
people here come from military families. My father flew jets at the same
time bush was fucking off in alabama earning his "texas souffle"
monicker.

Plus, unlike you, we have reason to help us sort things out. You appear to be blinded by chimp lust.

Although I'm sure he didn't realize he was doing so, White House
Communications Director Dan Bartlett has apparently confirmed that Bush
was indeed AWOL---Absent Without Leave---during part of the period he
obligated himself to serve in the Air National Guard. (Uniform Code of
Military Justice 866. ART. 86. Absence Without Leave)

Bartlett said that Bush skipped the [Flight Medical] examination
simply because he'd decided to go to Alabama as part of the political
campaign and wouldn't be serving as a pilot there.

Since Bush would have been ordered---in the full military sense of
the term---to present himself for that examination at a specified place,
date, and time and failed to do so, Bush is guilty of being AWOL. It
does not matter why Bush didn't show up, only that he did not.

That he apparently never faced any possibility of punishment for this
infraction of the Military Code of Uniform Justice (UCMJ) can be due to
only three things: an administrative failure, political influence, or
dereliction of duty on part of the person or persons whose duty it would
have been to institute such proceedings. Dereliction of duty, or
failure to perform a required task, is also an infraction of the UCMJ
and it's unlikely that anyone would have `decided' on his own to
over-look the matter. Since the military has set procedures to follow
for virtually every situation (and certainly the failure of someone to
show up for an examination), it's very unlikely that an administrative
failure occurred. That leaves political influence as the most likely
reason Bush apparently was never brought up on charges under the UCMJ
for being AWOL from the flight medical.

The big `flap' about Bush being AWOL is centered on his going to
Alabama, and as a result absenting himself from his Guard duties in
Texas. It's been written in at least one news article that Bush did
receive permission to go to Alabama, but only months after the fact of
his move. If that is truly the case, Bush was indeed AWOL during those
months he was in Alabama prior to receiving that permission. The three
possible reasons he apparently was not charged with being AWOL during
that time are those I've mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

It's apparent that Bush is also guilty of Dereliction of Duty (892.
Art. 92. Failure to Obey and Order or Regulation). Bush was assigned to
`duties involving flight', specifically as a F-102 Fighter Pilot. That
being the case, Bush would have been required to maintain a status of
`qualified' as an F-102 pilot. To do so, he would have not only been
required to pass an annual Flight Physical, but also `maintain
proficiency' in the type and model aircraft he flew. That is
accomplished by actually flying the aircraft. He also would have been
required to keep his knowledge of the aircraft---including operating
procedures and equipment changes---up to date. That's primarily
accomplished by reading `notices' on the aircraft, but `presentations'
where pilots must be present are also used---a staple for the National
Guard's `Week-End Warriors'. Both pilot requirements are referred to
collectively as `staying current'.

In any military organization, one simply does not decide to stop
doing something. To `legally' stop flying for any period of time, Bush
would have had to ask permission to do so. Since he apparently did not
so ask, the charge of Dereliction of Duty should also be added to those
of being AWOL.

RE: Reg -- "Again, where we were at the end of 2000, only now everybody knows the AWOL charge is baseless."

Baseless? Hardly.

George W. Bush took an oath to serve as an officer in the Texas Air
Nat'l Guard, having been elevated over at least 500 other applicants.
His own qualifying test scores were so low that it is altogether very
reasonable to assum that there were other applicants on that list who
were far more qualified than he.

Even then, the minimal service required of Bush seemed too burdensome
for him. By all accounts that I've read, the evidence is indisputable
that he apparently shirked that commitment. He still can't account --
or at least hasn't accounted so far -- for his whereabouts for at least
six months in 1972.

I lost my father in Vietnam. I really don't begrudge others who did
what they could to avoid service in the quagmire of a war. The fact
that Bush had strings pulled to get into the Guard is obvious, but it
really doesn't concern me.

What does concern me, however, is the literal creation of a parallel
universe by the various Bush campaigns -- a universe where George W.
Bush is elevated into something he clearly wasn't.

On page 34 of his autobiography "A Charge to Keep," Bush claimed that
he was turned down for Vietnam duty because he "had not logged enough
flight hours" in the F-102 fighter jet to qualify for combat
re-assignment, but then added, "I continued flying with my unit for the
next several years."

That statement has been proven in the records to be demonstrably
false. In fact, he only flew for 18 months, and last flew in April
1972. Shortly thereafter, he was then grounded for failure to maintain
his pilot ratings, i.e., he failed to show up for his flight physical.

During this time, he embarked upon what can best be described as his
"lost year," in which an amazing thing occurred -- everybody who served
in either the 187the Support Group and the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron
during that time seems to now suffer from collective long-term memory
loss, as none can recollect having served with a man who eventually
became Governor of Texas and President of the United States.

I'm sorry, but the rather amazing coincidence of Bush's lost military
paperwork and this apparent epidemic of Alzheimer's Disease strains the
bounds of credulity.

This AWOL story has turned into a rather fascinating Rorschach Test
for Bush's supporters: they see only what they want to see when it
supports their argument, and they ignore whatever evidence exists that
proves what they don't want to believe.

Lemmings has a new take but really nothing new to add.
http://www.progressivetrail.org/articles/040123A.Rogers(USAF-Ret).shtml
I really dont want this to go away,but the mainstream press has to do
some leg work to make it go and they wond do it.They have to much
invested/too much to lose if they follow this up.Its too bad we are so
concerned with our stake in societey to realize what our place in it
really is.
I hate the fact that we have become a terrified society and we know
where that originates.If you want to say you have no fears or that your
fears are not greater today you lie.Our fears today are greater thatn
ever due to the way the political/economic structure of our society has
been restructured in this new world order brought to us by the fellows
that resied in that big white place.

Al: In one of your posts upthread, you seem to say that because
there have only been 12 of 800 who can't recall Bush, this means that
there are 788 who do remember him. Where are their stories? You'd
think more people than Campenni (who was in PA if I recall during this
time) and Calhoun who also claims the wrong time frame in his
recollection of GWB would remember him. I'm more than happy to give you
some slack and say that there is some doubt about whether Bush was
technically AWOL, but your overwhelming need to declare the man innocent
is astounding. We get it, you love him. You get it, we don't care for
him and this is just another reason in a long list of reasons.

Al should not be allowed access to a computer,he's just too stupid.
According to the recores released by the WH, Bush was in attendance
for guard duty on 4-16-1972. The next time,accoding to records released
by the WH, was 10-28-1972. Now even Al can figure that is a 6 month
stretch he didnt attend any guard drills according to records released
by the WH.Under most circumstances that would constitute AWOL. Since he
wasnt charged with AWOL the only logical conclusions are either Bush got
special treatment, or the guard units he was assigned to didnt give a
crap and Bush was only too happy to not show up.
Since there are no records of Bush attending between 4-16-1972 and 10-28-1972 Calhoun's word is worthless.

Hey, Valerie, cheer up! Just be sure to tune back in when the Plame
indictements are announced. That's going take a lot of folk's minds
off the why's and wheretofore's of anyone's 1972 flight physical.

Please, let't not start with the "he didn't do anything anybody else
wouldn't have done, given the chance." #1. It isn't true, as we can see
by the examples set by Kerry and Clark, among others. #2. This is the
guy who ism and wants to continue to be, the freaking leader of the
freaking free world--don't you think he should be held to a higher
standard than your average slob/pothead/spoiled rich kid?

Yes, of course, it's important. There are some things youth does not
excuse, especially if you seek the highest office in the land, set
yourself up as some sort of moral guide for the rest of us unworthies,
and send 500+ young men and women to their deaths while you prance
around on a flight deck like a Tom Cruise wannabee because you haven't a
freaking clue what responsibility, courage, duty, and honor is--and you
think war is some sort of macho chess game.

Republicans have plastered "Character counts" all over our schools.
Those chickenshits wouldn't know character if if jumped up and bit them
on their lily-livered noses.

I believe the establishment press will pursue this National Guard
story agressively for a number of reasons: the WH press corps is sick of
being cowed by the administration; now that the Guard is going be more
actively deployed there will be more stories to draw parallels (how will
the WH deal with the AWOLs from today's guard personnel?); and just the
big disconnect between his enthusiasm for service and his total
rejection of it (at least on paper) from one month to the next in early
'72 (everybody loves a mystery).

There are alot of names "named" in those papers dumped on Friday
night, I suspect one thing might lead to another. Gotta give dubya the
credit for allowing the dump. But then again, he gets credit for getting
us into Iraq

1) Bush did not "fulfill his commitment" in his last year with the
Guard. For a "good year" he needed 50 "retirement/retention" points.
He only received 40. The document that was examined by Albert Lloyd
SAYS this, and also explains WHY. Bush received only 5 gratuitious
point because National Guard HQ made him INACTIVE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER
15, 1973. You only get "gratuitous" points for "active" duty, and they
are prorated.

2) What is REALLY interesting, however, is why Colorado changed
Bush's status TO INACTIVE. It had nothing to do with his discharge from
TANG---the request to be discharged was not even approved until
September 18, and the discharge was not to take effect until Oct. 1. If
you are looking for evidence that Bush was "thrown out" of TANG, the
fact that National Guard HQ changed his status to INACTIVE effective
September 15, 1973 is one place we should be looking.

3) The handwritten "certified correct" point summary from TANG does
NOT MATCH the points summary kept at the Colorado HQ. (the TANG copy
gave Bush 32 UTA (Unit Training Assembly) points---but because you can
only get 4 UTA points per month, and according the Colorado points
documents, Bush served in only 6 month, the absolute MAXIMUM UTA points
he could have received is 20. And if we assume he did duty in Alabama
with the 187th in October and November, the maximum UTA points he could
have gotten was 12---he did not serve on the weekends where UTA points
could be awarded in those months. Of particular note is the fact that
the "3" and "2" for "32" on the first line of the hand-written copy is
written in a DIFFERENT HAND than the rest of the documents "3's" and
"2's."

3) At least two of the documents that were given to Martin Heldt in
2000 were never released to the press in 2004. These are the "special
order" telling Bush to report for active duty dated May 1, 1973, and the
(undated) confirmation from the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force
that Bush had lost his flying status for failure to take his physical.
Two other document also cannot be found--Bush's Officer Effectiveness
Report for 1972-73 (the "not observed" report) and the response for NG
HQ in Colorado that says that Bush should have been reassigned because
he was not performing Pilot duties. I can't be positive this document
is missing, because there is one file on the USA TODAY site that they
MIGHT be in that does not open.

two other point---Kevin suggested that because Bush pulled lots of
duty in May 1973 that it makes no sense that he was "not observed" on
the 72-73 OER. But the period covered by that OER was May 1, 1972-April
30, 1973, and the OER is dated May 2nd, 1973.

It MAY be significant that the OER is dated May 2nd. His previous
two OERs were both dated May 26th---bush's enlistment anniversary date.
As noted above, Bush was ordered to do active duty on May 1st. This
suggests that TANG wanted something done about Bush as SOON AS
POSSIBLE...

Missing his flight physical and getting grounded is bad enough in its
own right. Uncle Sam spent a lot of money training him and he up and
decides he's tired of flighting? Why didn't Russert ask W why he
decided to quit flying before his service was up?

And the final time in the Reserves in Colorado... Didn't W sign a
document saying that failure to perform his duties might mean him being
transferred to this very same reserve unit?

Doesn't sound like much use of reason going on here, more like
justifying and denial. People can rationalize anything, including this
all consuming hatred of the President. I haven't read every single post
on this site about this crowd's justification of the AWOL charge but
the preponderance of the military opinion supports Bush. Regardless,
the name-calling and venom coming from this group frankly frightens me.
Its irrational. You demonize people who don't agree with you. Just
looking at the recent postings gives one a general flavor of the
discourse and its putrid. The only thing I've learned from this blog is
how NOT to conduct myself.

They have "executive" priviledge.They can get away with murder and
probably have.This administration has been guilty of everything why not
hide behind a few more documents.I loved the way Scotty waved those
documents around like they actually said the president is GOD.

Valerie we have only learned vehemence from the best the world has in
a teacher of hate.The republicans have been spewing so much garbage for
so long that I just get used to it.The reason you notice it here is
because it just now has a justification.

I disagree with Nick about the story being over here. There are alot
of drips left but I also don't want the dems to overplay there hand.
Credibility is an issue Bush hoped to run on, this NG issue just adds to
a list of problems he has assembled all on his own: deficit, job
growth, medicare costs, environment, etc.
If Bush's personnel integrity can be legitimately questioned in an election year it might swing some voters.

Freedom all around the world is slipping and all the conservatives
can come up with is that the so called "liberals" are hateful.Whats
wrong with my thinking when I feel disgruntled when freedom is dying and
I want to find a way to rid the world of the tyrant that is feedind
this movement to dominate the world with restrictive
thinking/movement/living.
All around the world government leaders are being cowed by this
government by the threat of losing funding or trade or political power
and reniging on their quest for freedoms.
Americas government and way of life truly is threatened and the
brainwashed want us to let up on the battle for life liberty and the
freedom of tyranny.

Valerie, a couple of readers have already responded to your post to
point out that I served in the USAF and have strong feelings about the
quality of Bush's military service to his country. I was in the USAF at
about the same time that Bush was in the TANG. The Guard at the time was
a convenient way to avoid going on active military duty and being sent
to Vietnam. He got a lot of prefential treatment in getting into the
TANG ahead of other applicants, in getting a commission without going
through ROTC or OTS, in getting accepted into flight school with such a
dismal score, to blow off his flight physical with no reprecussions
other than being removed from flight status and to take off to Alabama
without orders. He had an obligation after he finished flight school and
training to be an F-102 pilot to fly for 5 years and he failed to do
that. I grew up in the South, where military service is synonymous with
honor and courage. I did my best to live up to that code when I was in
the Air Force. I don't think George Bush did and I resent that he took
his military service so lightly.

Valerie: Haven't you learned that the military is not trained to
question? Wouldn't you be insubordinate to question your C in C?
Military top brass are not going to question or refute the Pres. claims.
Powell says a bit about Bush's kind in his book ( before he was pegged
as the Sec State). BTW, you obviously don't listen much to Rush, or
Savage, or Hannity, or O'Reilly, or Novak...

I haven't read every single post on this site about this crowd's
justification of the AWOL charge but the preponderance of the military
opinion supports Bush.

val, I hate to break this to you, but a few of us have actually been
examining the documents that Bush released (and some he didn't release,
but that Marty Heldt got through an FOIA request in 2000). And guess
what.... the DOCUMENTS show that Bush did NOT do his duty. He shirked
his duty.

And as far as the opinion of "military" types, there are just as
many, if not more, military who are disputing that the records show that
Bush served as their are saying that Bush fulfilled his duty.

Smalfish: Didn't you get the memo? You see, if a man comes along
and claims to be a great believer in freedom and the kind of freedoms
that free people love in all the free places of the world where free
people meet freely to discuss and engage in freedom-loving program
related activities, he surely cannot be questioned when his actions seem
to refute many of his spoken words about freedom. You're just not free
to question him on it. Sorry.

He got a lot of prefential treatment in getting into the TANG
ahead of other applicants, in getting a commission without going through
ROTC or OTS, in getting accepted into flight school with such a dismal
score, to blow off his flight physical with no reprecussions other than
being removed from flight status and to take off to Alabama without
orders.

actually, when you examine the record closely, it appears that there
were repercussions. Bush got favorable treatment from some folks at
TANG, but it looks like the adjutant general of TANG (who was an
appointee of the Governor, who was a democrat) was not doing any favors
for the son of the head of the Republican National Committee.

Ya but he had to quit flying because of 9/11.And that makes it right
and just.So therefor I submit he should get a free pass to rule the
entire world.He got a free pass to join the guard because he knew that
someday he would be the leader of the world and he could'nt be killed in
viet.......(uhh wheres that place again?)
If i hear another world leader use 9/11 as justification to stay in
power again I'm going to scream.Haiti's leader just pulled that out in
an interview just like ol georgie does whenever HE'S in trouble.

Reg: no, we now know that in fact Bush really did miss drills for six consecutive months.

Which is true and by any military standards this is called AWOL is it
not?! He was AWOL and he still has been AWOL all along. The
allegations are true like they always have been. Nothing has been
cleared up, just more unanswered questions.

I wonder if someone could get a FOIA requesting whether everything
has been released or not? Or specifically ask for those items that we
know are missing, such as his final DD 214 and a report on the flight
inquiry.

It's really unfair.
Kerry has an affair, you all don't care.
Yet you slam and demean president Bush with absolutly NO evidence!
In fact, there's plenty of evidence that says he served honorably.
Take that and smoke it.

So it's on and on and on. Ad Nauseum. Here's a different summary of
the affair on a site many of you probably don't read on a daily basis.
www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp
You can denigrate the president, (and many of you show no respect by
excluding his title), but while you have some former military personnel
upset with him, there is a vast majority of the current military who
whole heartedly support him. You have your consiracy theories why he
didn't do this or didn't do that. But there are also explanations out
there that counter you theories. Was his final year as impressive as his
first four? Obviously not. was it way out of the norm for the times. It
looks not. Many Guard and Reserve personnel were getting out early due
to the end of the war. Not enough billets to go around. So go ahead and
play Sherlock Holmes.
The number of stories in the media have definately subsided. In my
capital city paper, there has not been a story since last Sat. Unless
something else arises, some CREDIBLE witnesses come forth to deny his
service, all you have left is IFS, WHAT ABOUTS, and SUPPOSE IF. Not a
lot to go on.

Al,
Did the president serve more or less honorably than the DC sniper, who
also got an honorable discharge? Or, since you seem to be basing your
judgment entirely on Bush's HD, is it fair to say you hold them in
equal regard?
(That would be about my take)

The problem with FOIA is that apparently it takes quite some time to
process these requests,and with this administration those requests can
take much longer.If in fact you can even get the relevant documents
under FOIA anymore.Because of the governments policy of secrecy in
government,alot of minimal FOIA requests are being denied.
By the way I read somewhere that in the guard being AWOL is a little
different than in the strait military in that you can be absent for a
much longer period.not to give the wingnuts any more fuel,but I do
believe Bush came back just in time to be counted present before
actually being called AWOL.The main argument is the absence of records
and why he was removed from flight status.Those two questions are really
whats relevent anyway.I'm willing to let Bush off the hook on AWOL but I
just want answers to the unanswered questions.

Meatss: I would think a person as upstanding as the President(titled
for your approval), a man who insisted upon his integrity and honor
during the 2000 campaign would be able to clear this up. I know what he
claims, but his records do not indicate it. Even if I grant you all
that you say, the fact that he has handled this in a way that seems less
than responsible and less than transparent, indicates a character flaw.
Based on the Republican abhorrence for suspect character, I can only
assume those who don't vote for the Dem will stay home?

Sorry, all you moronic brownshirt fucks out there, but "President"
Tipsy McStagger will be dragging the suspicions about his obvious desertion
(and I use that word deliberatly) around for the rest of his miserable
life. You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Clenis! Clenis!
Clenis!" just as loud as you want, but it ain't gonna go away. It sticks
to the Miserable Failure like shit to a blanket, and will forever be
one of the many asterisks marking his one-term appointed presidency.

In fact, you all better hope that all the records of his arrests,
convictions, community service, and detox stays have long since been
burnt, because the moment one of those sweet little documents surfaces,
Cmdr. Flightsuit is out on his ass post-haste. You know it, I know it,
and so does the Miserable Failure and his toadies...

Meatss, no credible witness has come forth to confirm his claim of
service either. An odd lapse given that he was already a member of the
ruling elite and therefore extremely noticeable. Worse, the shoddy
record-keeping, out of character for the military in general, looks
rather suspicious when combined with Bush’s history of cronyism and
privilege.

And the Dems are willing to vote for anyone with multitudes of
character flaws (former Pres. Clinton comes to mind). The president said
he would release his records. They got released. Whether you think he
is hiding something or not, the records show he seved his time. Now you
may not have every scrap of documentation you desire, but shit happens
with paperwork, in the military, from over 30 years ago.
Any comment on Byron York's take? Where is he off base? (No pun intended)

Meatss: The dems really didn't make anything of a character flaw.
That would be the era 1992-2000 still ringing in your ears. Peter
Jennings brought this up again, not the Dems. My point was that, Repubs
sound like the biggest hypocrites because they pounded the character
drum for eight fucking years and now they have their own issue in the
white house. When a man like the President sets the bar at perfection,
he shouldn't fuck up. I'm sure you see it differently...

Face it this president has no legs to stand on and the repubs just
hold on to the notion that "we just cant have another democrat in
office."Well if your dam dictator party andd the damn democrats would
quit screwing with the election laws maybe we could get a third party
with some real substance and legitimacy started.But as it stands riht
now the two parties are happy with the status quo.YOU Republicans bought
this ticket and now you have no choice but to stand by it till death do
you part.And dave IS right,if even one document comes to the light of
day I think maybe a new party might have a chance.

Meatss, the problem is that the trivial character flaws in President
Clinton are dwarfed by the elitism, cronyism, and hucksterism that are
the core of Governor Bush. Sure, President Clinton liked women, but
that didn’t affect his ability to use his Presidency as a tool for
positive change in America (improved economy, and improved national
security to name just two). Bush’s flaws, on the other hand, have
resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans from terrorism,
hundreds of soldiers and thousands of Iraqis from a war for the
entertainment of Republicans, and a confluence of corporate criminals in
the corridors of our capitol.

Kevin, Excuse me, but we have the White House's word that they've
released all of Bush's Guard records. That's not the same thing as
they're all being released, especially with this White House. McCain
four years ago, and Clark and Kerry this go-round waived all privacy
privileges to their military records under the Freedom of Information
Act. So why not make an FOIA request for all of Bush's Guard records to
the various repositories of such files? If you get something back, see
how it jibes with the document dump the White House made last week. And
if Bush hasn't made the FOIA waiver despite the White House claim to
have released all the records, well, maybe even Al would find that a bit
inconsistent.

I don't think he's set the bar at perfection. That's your take. He's
admitted abusing alcohol and drugs. He said he's turned his life over to
God. He's trying to do better. But the first thing an alcoholic admits
is that he or she is one for life. I don't see him being grandiose about
his personal makeup.

On the other hand, 1992-2000 doesn't ring so much in my ears as in
the hole in my savings did from the big tax increase in '93. Pres.
Clinton's character flaws got in the way of his job performance. If he
hadn't been so absorbed with the scandals of the day, maybe he could
have done a better job of running the country.
If the president loses in November (and that's a big if), I don't think
you'll see him obsessing on it like the losing candidate and other
members of your party from 2000. Goodnight.

Kevin, you wrote at the end of your 'National Guard Finale' topic:
'So the story is stuck in an endless speculation loop unless some
enterprising reporter comes up with actual new evidence. Until then, we
wait. AND IF NO NEW EVIDENCE APPEARS, THE STORY DIES.' ... That's
exactly what they want to happen - that the story dies! Please do remind
us every-so-often in the next few months about this story, so no-one
will forget it! Thanks!

Final comment for Meatss, Clinton wasn’t obsessed with the scandals –
that would be the Republican Party and its enabling drones; Clinton
didn’t cause the impeachment, that was a bunch of panty sniffers who
were really just upset that they weren’t in power. As to your whine
about Clinton’s rather minor tax increase (especially when compared with
the rather major one enacted by Red-Ink Ronnie), if this affected you
at all then you are pretty well off (over $125k/yr or so - a decade ago)
and are really just too petty to pay your share.

Oh, and as to the notion that Bush will not obsess over his loss, of
course not – his elite cronies will further enrich this child of
privilege once he leaves office. Bush’s motto is “What, me worry?” for
good reason.

Why is it so MANY in this current administration are being
investigated?I was upset that bill clinton needed to be investigated(he
did)
I was upset over Iran-contra.
I was too young to be upset over watergate(other than we couldnt go swimming cause my mom HAD to watch the hearings)
BUT this has gone beyond the rediculous.Now its everybodys favorite being investigated too.

RICHARD PERLE, the former US Assistant Defence Secretary and
Hollinger International board member, is under investigation for
allegedly failing to disclose bonuses worth about $3 million (£1.6
million) which he received for running an investment scheme, The Times
has learnt.

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/times-perle.html

How is it we're supposed to love and reelect a group of criminals??????
And if you do vote for them what does that say about YOUR morals?

Meatss: The only reason Bush admits to that is that he can't hide
it. Not only that, it plays well with his base of fundamentalists. You
are one of the few people who apparently got fucked by the economy in
Clinton's reign. As far as scandals dominating one's focus on the job,
we have Plame, Nat'l Guard, Iraq intel, Halliburton overcharges, Energy
Policy suit, have I forgotten any? Or is the fact that none of these
involved an ejacualtion make them less than scandalous?

BTW Meatss: So you'd rather have your kids and grandkids getting the
huge tax increase to pay for the fiscal responsibility of this
President and his Republican congress? What happened to his claim of
not passing on problems to future generations?

Meatss, Do you think W. will be man enough to admit arranging for an
abortion for his girlfriend in Texas in the early 70s----when abortion
was a felony, mind you?
We'll get to see the answer after Flynt's book comes out with the details, backed by affidavits every step of the way.

I cant wait for the summer and the real debates begin.Bush has no
place to stand.The only relief he might have is an october suprise.But
then again that may not have any sway with people who are beginning to
see the light of a democracy on the verge of collapse and realize it's
not to late to turn back.

Every person who testifies in behalf of the President is lying and
every person who takes issue with the President's story is telling the
truth?

Hmmm, the needle on my smell-test-o-meter just pegged.

CalPudnit, I believe, is the only blog still doggedly blogging way on
this bogus story. We have, however, probably seen the last post from
here. When you start rejoicing at the fact that unsavory people (so
called wing-nuts) aren't reading your blog because you haven't blogged
about an previous red hot issue for some time, it is over. The
unsavory types were lurking in the wings to see how big a helping of
crow would be consumed. The last ditch effort today to breathe some
life back into something that was The Big Issue a few days ago turned
out to be a pretty lame rehash of same old much to do about nothing.

Actually, the wingnut crowd seems to have vanished. All we got was Al
(who's pretty good-natured and definitely as game as Ned Kelly) and a
little bit of Reg. None of the "I used to be a Democrat until you guys
started this" crowd or the rest of the ring-wraiths.

This issue MAY be dead,I dont think so,and it's too early to say
either way.BUT I'm predicting there's a new one brewing just around the
corner.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080833/posts

Given the events that have transpired, it is not unreasonable to
expect the intelligence review to undertake an intense analysis of
Chalabi's role, beginning with this question: What exactly was Chalabi's
relationship with Iran from the 1980s onward?

Just what was the role this guy,the war Presidents main man,played in
getting us to go to war???Did we get played because he wanted us to get
saddam??were we unwitting players to Irans goals??What WAS the
president thinking when he took this theif into his confidence?How come
dicky got turned off when he found this Iraqi traitor playin footsies
with Iran?HMMMMMMM.Or was it the U.S> government in bed with the
hated Iranians?HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM??I do believe this WILL be
investigated much more.
WHO needs AWOL when the president has his pants down in front of the HATED Iranians!!

Kevin, I know a lot of people now want to put the Bush TANG
controversy aside and move on but I'm not willing to do that. It's very
personal for me because I served in the USAF at about the same time as
Bush was in the TANG. I didn't get the breaks he did and it still pisses
me off that he acts like such a hero. I had to compete to get into OTS
and had to successfully complete it to get my commission - it was not
handed to me. I did not get into flight school although I had a higher
score than Bush on the pilot portion of the AFOQT. I served on active
duty, which Bush avoided because he was in the TANG. I completed service
to my country, all the way to the last day of my commitment - which
Bush did not. I think I'm more of a patriot than Bush is because I
didn't take the easy way out as he did. As a national leader, the man
disgusts me.

Do you want whine with your cheese? Congratulations on completing
you service obligation. I did too. I got out early too so I guess I am
not a patriot either. Senator Kerry and Al Gore got out early too. Al
Gore got special treatment in the military as did Senator Kerry, who
left Vietnam well before his tour was completed. I consider being
assigned admiral aide duty in Washington DC as special treatment.
(Washington is a hell of a nice duty station compared to Camp Lejeune NC
where I was stationed). Those guys are not patriots in your book either
I guess.

You were in the AF and he was in the NG. Different. Like being in the
Marines and being in the Marine Reserve. Day and night. He did serve
on active duty by the way. Longer than Al Gore and Bill Clinton did. I
think why he did not go to OTS was explained somewhere. Look it up.
Please note it happened over 30 years ago. Let it go.

Let's face it, you just irrationally hate Bush. You are just another
misguided Bush Hater and use the differences in your military service
experiences to justify your hating him. Sad.

Slater: Kerry ate some lead so you can go a little easier on him.
But I agree with you that this should not die. There is a big fat hole
there. The nutty zealots of the radical rightwing of the Republican
Party still think Clinton killed a large number of people. They won't
let it go. There is no reason to let this go. Bush is rich punk. He
deserves to have his integrity questioned at every turn. No quarter.

Let me see if I get this correct: Every person who testifies in
behalf of the President is lying and every person who takes issue with
the President's story is telling the truth? Hmmm, the needle on my
smell-test-o-meter just pegged.

The problem is that those who are "testifying on behalf" of Shrub are
saying things that are contradicted by the DOCUMENTS Shrub is using to
claim he "did his duty". Its not a case of "he said/she said".....its a
case of "he said/THE DOCUMENTS SAY".

As to the question of there being "no evidence" of Bush being AWOL....

1) A special order was issued requiring Bush to appear for nine days
of active duty on May 1, 1973. Bush's Officer Effectiveness Report
covered the period May 1, 1972 - April 30, 1972. There is no reason
other than being "AWOL" that accounts for this special order.

2) Bush was removed from "active status" by the FEDERAL Air National
Guard HQ effective September 15th, 1973. There is no reason, other
than AWOL, to explain why Bush would have had his status changed by
Colorado NGHQ. (September 15 was before not only the date of Bush's
TANG discharge and reassignment, but predates the approval of that
action.)

In other words, PUNATIVE MEASURES were taken against Bush by TANG in
May 1973, and by ANG HQ in September, 1973. Those who claim there is
"no evidence" that Bush was AWOL will have to find some explanation for
why these steps were taken before the "no evidence" claim is credible.

Here's something to think about. GWB scored lower than most on a
test, but got in anyway because of his parentage. That sounds an awful
lot like what Republicans complain about in cases of affirmative action
admissions to colleges....

Even ignoring the duty attendance/AWOL issues, that seems a bit hypocritical.

I am wondering whether there might be something to the James Bath
angle, the guy who was grounded at the same time as Bush, and was later
an investor in Arbusto Petroleum and probably involved with Bush's later
dealings with Middle Eastern investors. Given the way Bath's and
Bush's lives have been intertwined, dating back to TANG, why not look at
his military file, his arrest record, etc.?

What matters here is that the heart and soul of the United States
Armed Forces has by now cast enough of an eye at this story, full of
terms they live with, to have time to conclude that George Bush is about
on a par with Bill Clinton in terms of C in Cs to respect, whatever
they say to the rest of us. Kerry is different.

And I doubt anyone else on this site is either. But, I think he's
utterly unsuited for public office, based on what he did before his
appointment, and what he has done since. I do believe he has given
relief and comfort to those who do hate this country by their actions,
like the enviro-rapists, the corpora-fuckers, and the
police-state-thugs. Oh, and don't forget the theocra-loonies. Bush has
turned all that is good about our country over to these people. I don't
hate him, but

The Bath story was actually documented pretty well on Larry Flynt's
site. Yeah, the Hustler guy. I'm sure the wingers won't believe anything
from that site, but if the original sources check out,...naw, they
still won't believe it. BTW, I always thought it was funny that Bush
named his company "Ar-BUST-o."

Dennis Slater, that's an interesting post from you. From my comments
about the quality of Bush's military service, you have characterized my
overall feelings about Bush ("Bush-hater") and determined my mental
state ("irrational"). Since you don't know my other views on George
Bush's public service, you don't like me stating my views on Bush's
military service and you can determine one's mental state based on one
view, I have to ask you: who is the "irrational" one and the "hater"?

Occam's Razor: Bush enjoyed flying private "missions" at public expense until they added drug testing to the medical exam.

I'm guessing that an audit that restricted jet joyriding, or any
actual danger of flying in combat, would have had the same deflating
effect on Bush's "military" career. The medical exam just happened to
be the first problem that came along.

People on both sides of this debate have been aggressively looking
for people who were in Alabama or Texas in 1972-73 to vouch for the fact
that Bush was either serving or not serving.

I have a better idea.

By many reports, Bush leap-frogged over some 500 applicants to the
Guard to obtain his position with the TANG. Instead of looking for
people who were in Texas or Alabama, let's look for people who were in
Viet Nam.

How many of them are dead?

How many of them lost arms or legs, or other body parts or capacities?

All someone would have to do would be the get hold of the waiting
list, then start looking up names. Any ambitious journalists out there?

He could have started on the morning of 9/11 by not continuing to
read a book about goats to a bunch of school kids while 3,000 of his
fellow citizens were burning to death. Or by heading back to
Washington, D.C., on that morning instead of running like a scared
rabbit first to Louisiana and then to a bunker in Nebraska. Or by not
standing on the smoking ruins (and the remains of those 3000 fellow
citizens) of the WTC and leading a pep rally just so Rove would have a
photo op with which to wow the faithful.

In other words he could have acted like a hero by acting like a hero instead of the snivelling and cowardly son of privilege that he is.

Might be a good idea for everyone who wants the bottom of this story
exposed to public scrutiny to drop a thank-you email to Helen Thomas
(hthomas at hearstdc.com) for staying in McClellan's face about it.

I apologize in advance that I'm summarizing poorly things that I've
read elsewhere on the Internet. And I'm (slightly) sorry for
embellishing on the unfounded rumors.

Somewhere in Bush's official and inofficial resumes during his
National Guard service time, it has him working for a tropical plant
importer. The innocent wording said that Bush was using his flying
priveledges in the Guard to transport these exotic plants from Florida
to Texas. (Yeah, right; as if they couldn't be transported by more
traditional means; as if Texas didn't already have or need tropical
plants from Florida).

Now comes the unfounded rumor embellishment part.

How many tropical plants can you pack into a fighter plane that Bush was qualified to fly?

Trick question. Remember, we're talking 1972, Florida is a hub of
illegal importation, and those plants might already be conveniently in
powder form.

Bush claims to being "clean" since 1974; he doesn't say from what he
is "clean". At the time of Bush's missed physical, the government had
started drug testing its pilots. Coincidence?

So to expand upon the unfounded rumors with more baseless
speculation, I think that the priority altering effects of usage might
explain the radical change in career ambitions away from flying so
suddenly, particularly if usage was combined with distribution. Most
definitely if G.W. was about to be or was caught.

If it got that far, Congressman G.H.W. Bush might have pulled some
strings to smooth things over and to send G.W. to a safehaven in
Alabama. And they might have pulled strings for any partners in crime.
Bush family loyalty and cronyism run deep.

James R. Bath was a party-buddy of G.W.'s in the Guard. His name
appears on many of G.W.'s service forms and in later years in Arbusto
business deals that the Bush family established with Saudi Arabians,
including the bin Laden family.

Maybe the mainstream media should investigate James R. Bath if they
want to fill in gaps in G.W.'s service record. If they can...

When G.H.W. Bush then became head of the CIA in 1976, if not V.P. in
1980 or President in 1988, it would be easy to remove blemishes on
service records. To be thorough, though, Texas Governor G.W. Bush had
others comb through the files in 1997.

To me, the issue isn't that G.W. was AWOL, that he might have done a
'70's thing with substances, or that the tropical plant importation
might have been something else. And even effort to cover it up might be
understandable, providing this was an isolated instance.

The issue for me is that this isn't an isolated instance but that it
is part of a pattern. The pattern involves G.H.W.'s rolodex, leverages
connections, rewards cronies, and attempts to cover-up failure. The
pattern includes questionable business deals for all Bush family
members, but certainly for G.W. and his failed business ventures. Focus
on G.W. and you'll miss important strands to the pattern that involve
G.H.W., the Middle East, and bin Ladens.

I certainly believe that people can change. But when a person is
caught today in a lie (and a cover-up and other gray areas: Iraq) and
when digging in their past also shows instances of the same (e.g., AWOL,
Harken), then it calls into question the truth of everything that
happened in between and what is that person's true nature...

Al, in reference to your first post... Congratulations, you have
attacked Kevin's weakest "piece of evidence." And you have only
attacked that. You disregarded everything else he said in the process.
If you really want to make a good, legitimate argument, you need to
engage Kevin's entire post and not just his weakest piece.

"Bush refused to release his full military records in 1994, 1998,
2000, and again for several weeks in 2004 even under intense pressure.
Why act guilty if you have nothing to hide?"

Isn't this the same sort of question the administration was asking about Saddam and his WMD?"

Yes, but in this case we're not going to invade a foreign country.
We just want the administration to release all the documents and for a
coherent, sensible story to emerge. The grammatical structure and
implications of the question are the same, but the context is entirely
different.

So what's next? At the moment, nothing, unless someone
digs up some new evidence. It's possible that the Bushies aren't really
releasing his entire file, but someone would need to come up with
evidence for that. It's possible that documents were purged from his
file, but we would need further evidence beyond Burkett's word to keep
that story alive. It's possible that something happened in mid-1972 to
explain the odd discrepancies in the documents, but there's no hard
evidence of that either.

It's possible that Bush was off in Chile being a paid assassin for
his father, the Director of Central Intelligence. That would explain
why we can't document evey minute of his time in Alabama. It's possible
that Bush was abducted by the same aliens Eisenhower talked to during
his terms; trauma from that would explain his speaking difficulties.
It's possible that Bush died, and has been replaced by a specially
trained CIA agent so that the Prescott Bush dynasty could continue
supporting the secret plans of the Nazis amd Illuminati, and the
replacement is hesitant because he's listening to answers being radioed
to him through the tooth implant the dental records are supposed to
cover up. It's possible that Bush is a very butch lesbian, and did the
flight suit thing (with an appropriately placed rolled up pair of socks)
to put people off the scent. It's possible that Bush is a space alien
shape-shifter; have you ever seen him at the same time as Rene
Aubergenois?

Of course all that is just a bunch of interesting questions, and
without answers it's perfectly reasonable to think there might be more
there.

No need to speculate, Charlie.
We now have a clearer picture of the problems with Bush's record. Two points stand out:
the statements by other flyers in the Alabama unit (see above); second,
it's more clear than ever that missing the flight physical was
inexcusable---a very serious violation.

I've been reading with great interest many of the comments made here
regarding Bush's TANG records. In trying to explain the meaning of the
documents to my wife, I dragged out my DD214 from my Air Force service
'63-'67. She commented that my signature hadn't changed very much in all
these years so just for the heck of it I linked to the USAToday
documents page. In the section titled "Basic Enlistment Package" there
is a copy of Bush's DD214 showing his discharge from basic training as
an airman for transfer into the Guard. That's a normal procedure I
recall because we had some Guard members in my basic flight. The DD214
in this section shows Bush's AF service number and includes the stamp of
the authorizing official or headquarters as well as Bush's signiture --
just like my DD214. As I continued searching the other titles, I found
another "copy" of the same document -- or what purports to be the same
document in the section titled "11-1-04 Personnel File." But wait -- the
Bush signitures don't match and there is no Headquarters seal. I'm no
handwriting expert but if you print the two documents and hold them up
to a light, it's obvious that the GEORGE WALKER BUSH signitures are
different. Additionally, in the 11-1-04 section, there is another DD214
showing Bush's release from active duty at Moody AFB in Georgia. The
entry date is 29 Nov 68 and the effective date of the discharge is 29
Nov 69. Obviously given after completion of pilot training. Finally on
this subject, there is no DD214 showing his "Honorable Discharge" from
the Guard although there were orders cut with an effective date of 1 Oct
73. Not having served in the Guard, perhaps this is all that is
required. Maybe someone who was in the Guard can clear this up. I am
certain I never had to sign multiple copies of my DD214 so how come the
signitures differ?
Similarly, in the section titled "Grade Detrmination", there is a
document "Oath To Be Executed Prior to Extension of Temporary Federal
Recognition in the Air National Guard." A similar document appeaars in
the 11-1-04 section. Check the Bush signatures -- they are not the same.
The signiture of the Personnel Officer also is different (check how the
"T" is crossed in his last name). Now, why would those be different
although the date the document was "sworn to" is 4 September 1968 on
both documents.
I've not reviewed all the documents closely, but perhaps someone whith more knowledge can provide an answer...Thanks

Rene Auberjenois is a talented actor and would make a much better President than Bush.

Of course, the above sentence goes holds true for just about any name
you insert in place of good ol' Rene, and that includes Mafia syndicate
crime lords, butch lesbians and, yes, space aliens. (Current members of
the administration are excluded, as are high-ranking Repubs.)

I had a chance yesterday to speak with my dad, now in his late
seventies, about some of the aviation factoids I've read here and on
Tacitus. He was career Navy and a test pilot etc., etc. I was especially
eager to run some of National Guard and flying issues past him. (Toward
this end, could someone kindly post those performance and other records
again. I will get his comments and share them here. Am new to the
b-sphere and don't have quite the facility I would like with the
archives and linking.)

Over on Tacitus, for example, this bit of hyperbole about the F-102:

"Frankly, I'd rather spend 4 months in a Swift Boat in the Mekong
Delta than several years flying an F-102, the world's first supersonic
all-weather jet interceptor and, devilishly tricky to fly by all
accounts."

Perhaps someone can help me locate another authoritative-sounding
post about the F-102 (everytime I start a search I keep losing my
Comments text). Someone, perhaps Charlie Colorado, got a little
rhapsodic about the flying skills required to fly one.

Anyway, the upshot. The F-102s (called the Delta Dagger, with short
stubby fixed wings) were built by Convair, the same San Diego firm that
built the Atlas missiles. My Dad flew them in the late 1950s and early
1960s to maintain his proficiency and hours, which as everyone now
knows, active-duty pilots are required to do.

Was it a "devilishly tricky" airplane to fly? I asked him. No, he
said, in the voice he uses to end debate. It was "heavy." Was it
"tricky" to fly. No. Same voice.

Next factoid: Was it called "the Widowmaker?" I asked him. (One of
the posters, I think here in another thread, made reference to this
fearsome moniker, in discussing Lt. Bush's flying credentials.)

No (in that same voice reserved for dismissing falsehoods). That was
the F-104, he said. Moreover, the F-104 was called the Widowmaker, my
dad explained, NOT by U.S. pilots but by the Luftwaffe in the 1950s (the
U.S. sold them to the West German air force). He said there were
training issues at the time in the Luftwaffe, which led to accidents and
deaths--in West Germany. The F-106 was special: It came with a cool pin
that said you had flown Mach 2 in level flight because that's how fast
it went when you stepped on the gas (here my dad would correct my
terminology in that voice he reserves for idiots).

Incidentally, it was Chuck Yeager who tested the F-104; Hank
Hancock., my dad reports, was the first naval aviator to fly it. And he
had to go to Edwards to do so. Also, Yeager's spectacular crash
described in THE RIGHT STUFF and shown in the movie, involved the
F-104--the scene where he walks out of the fireball on the desert floor.

Now, I can't imagine that any of Bush's defenders in the blogoshpere
would compare the man to Chuck Yeager or Hank Hancock, or any other test
pilot in the Navy or the Air Force today or forty years ago. But from
what I've read, their posts have misrepresented both the F-102 AND the
skill required to fly one. The plane had been fully tested. It was a
"heavy" plane. It was not "devilishly tricky" to fly, at least according
to my father. It wasn't even "tricky." It was used as a proficiency
trainer as early as 1959. That the F-102 was used in the National Guard
by third-string pilots at the end of its useful life in the fleet also
speaks to its dependability, ca. 1968-1971.

I am not dissing Guard pilots, and my father would NEVER use a term
like "third-string" (that is my smart-aleck editorializing in response
to the hyperbole from the so-called aviation experts who have held forth
here, with no rebuttal). I'm merely encouraging the rhapsodizers to
refrain from misrepresenting the facts and from hyping Lt. Bush's
ostensible flying skills.